1 661-010 0045(1) does not allow parties to""provide an evidentiary rebuttal.~Io <br />2 the factual. conclusions adopted by the [local decision maker] in its decision.") <br />3 We,. agree, with the city. None of . the permissible bases for, taking <br />4 evidence_ outside the record listed in OAR 66.1-010-0045(1), include submitting . . <br />51- additional evidence in order to support or.controvert findings of compliance <br />6 with applicable approval criteria. The two bases in OAR 661-010-0045(1) that', <br />7: :petitioners cite are (1) procedural irregularities not shown in the record and-(2) . <br />8 disputes regarding the content of the record. But petitioners identify no <br />9 procedure violated with respect to Dahl's, testimony or the planning <br />10 commission's reliance on that testimony. The.closest petitioners come -is to: <br />11 argue that Dahl would not qualify as an expert in a judicial proceeding, <br />12, conducted under the Oregon Evidence Code or Federal Rules of Evidence. <br />13 However, state and federal rules of evidence do not apply to quasi-judicial land` <br />14 use proceedings. See EC 9.7072(5) ("Formal rules of.evidence as used in courts <br />15 of law shall not apply."); Foland v. Jackson County, 70 Or LUBA 247,257 <br />16 (2014)("Land use proceedings are not governed by rules of evidence"); Reagan _ <br />17 -v. City.; of Oregon City, 39 Or LUBA 672, 678-679 (200.1)("[T]he city. <br />18 commission is not required to apply the Oregon Rules of Evidence in its land <br />19 use proceeding[.]"). <br />